THANK GOD. Though I'm not in california, and I would have preferred something more sweeping (CAN WE PLEASE HAVE UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE), I'm still pleased with the law-because without it, finding health care for my fiance in the future is going to be a fucking Sisyphean task, unless I get a employer that provides for the both of us.

(I do wish to say that Virginia Tech is awesome, in that it allows me to define a 'life parter' and buy insurance from them at the wife/husband rate, even if we aren't legally married yet. Because otherwise we'd be screeeewwwed.)

I know that feel, bro/sis. My husband is type 1 diabetic, and he's on the pre-existing condition plan until January when the Medicaid expansion kicks in. (Kentucky finally approved it.)

It's slow, but things are getting better for everyone._________________Men and patriarchy aren't interchangeable.

I wish that some basic dental were included in this. I love that there is progress, don't get me wrong - but there has been dental drama recently, and when that happens it reminds me that places for low income people to get maintenance rather than emergency work are almost non-existant. (Or the wait time is a whole year for basic stuff.)_________________::crisis mode::

In light of the recent unauthorized disclosures, the President has said that he welcomes a debate about how best to simultaneously safeguard both our national security and the privacy of our citizens. The Administration has taken various proactive steps to advance this debate including the Presidentís meeting with the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, his public statements on the disclosed programs, the Office of the Director of National Intelligenceís release of its own public statements, ODNI General Counsel Bob Littís speech at Brookings, and ODNIís decision to declassify and disclose publicly that the Administration filed an application with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. We look forward to continuing to discuss these critical issues with the American people and the Congress.

However, we oppose the current effort in the House to hastily dismantle one of our Intelligence Communityís counterterrorism tools. This blunt approach is not the product of an informed, open, or deliberative process. We urge the House to reject the Amash Amendment, and instead move forward with an approach that appropriately takes into account the need for a reasoned review of what tools can best secure the nation.

Because if there's one thing The Most Transparent Administration Ever needs, it's an agency that's allowed to covertly collect data on anyone it likes via rubber stamp warrants issued by a secret court.

In light of the recent unauthorized disclosures, the President has said that he welcomes a debate about how best to simultaneously safeguard both our national security and the privacy of our citizens. The Administration has taken various proactive steps to advance this debate including the Presidentís meeting with the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, his public statements on the disclosed programs, the Office of the Director of National Intelligenceís release of its own public statements, ODNI General Counsel Bob Littís speech at Brookings, and ODNIís decision to declassify and disclose publicly that the Administration filed an application with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. We look forward to continuing to discuss these critical issues with the American people and the Congress.

However, we oppose the current effort in the House to hastily dismantle one of our Intelligence Communityís counterterrorism tools. This blunt approach is not the product of an informed, open, or deliberative process. We urge the House to reject the Amash Amendment, and instead move forward with an approach that appropriately takes into account the need for a reasoned review of what tools can best secure the nation.

Because if there's one thing The Most Transparent Administration Ever needs, it's an agency that's allowed to covertly collect data on anyone it likes via rubber stamp warrants issued by a secret court.

Man, it feels almost like.....almost like deja vu, only people here were outraged when the legislation that allowed it was ACTUALLY being passed and you were more of a "if you aren't doing anything wrong you don't have anything to worry about" kind of poster back then._________________

Joined: 04 Sep 2006Posts: 2416Location: North of the People's Republic of Massachusetts

Posted: Thu Jul 25, 2013 2:28 pm Post subject:

Monkey Mcdermott wrote:

Man, it feels almost like.....almost like deja vu, only people here were outraged when the legislation that allowed it was ACTUALLY being passed and you were more of a "if you aren't doing anything wrong you don't have anything to worry about" kind of poster back then.

Sorry to break your reverie, but unlike you (apparently) I wasn't posting here in 2001 when the Patriot Act passed, nor in 1978 when FISA passed.

and (i know this will shock you) under justice roberts, an increasing proportion of the court have been a) republicans and 2) formerly in the executive branch. and they've started writing opinions! (they were instituted to just say yes or no to wiretap requests). all of which adds up, in the opinion of various legal types, to a court that is more likely to permit intrusive government investigations.

Quote:

But, increasingly in recent years, the court has produced lengthy rulings interpreting the meaning of surveillance laws and constitutional rights based on procedures devised not for complex legal analysis but for up-or-down approvals of secret wiretap applications. The rulings are classified and based on theories submitted by the Justice Department without the participation of any lawyers offering contrary arguments or appealing a ruling if the government wins.

Quote:

The courtís power has also recently expanded in another way. In 2008, Congress passed the FISA Amendments Act to allow the National Security Agency to keep conducting a form of the Bush administrationís program of surveillance without warrants on domestic soil so long as only foreigners abroad were targeted. It gave the court the power to create rules for the program, like how the government may use Americansí communications after they are picked up.

i should say something clever here, but this sort of thing is becoming exhausting._________________aka: neverscared!
a flux of vibrant matter

Under current law, 529 plans work like Roth IRAs: you put money in, and the money grows tax-free for college. Distributions are tax-free provided they are to pay for college.

Under the Obama plan, earnings growth in a 529 plan would no longer be tax-free. Instead, earnings would face taxation upon withdrawal, even if the withdrawal is to pay for college. This was the law prior to 2001.

Early data is in from some tax preparers. Some 53% of Jackson Hewitt clients who received subsidies have to repay part or all of it, with the largest being $12,000, said Mark Steber, chief tax officer. The rest overestimated their income so they are getting even larger refunds. One taxpayer is collecting an additional $7,500.

Some Obamacare enrollees who have to pay back their subsidies are now thinking twice about enrolling for 2015.

Erica Cherington, 32, was "very happy" to enroll in Obamacare last year so she could address some health issues. She only had to pay $89 a month for a Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield plan, thanks to a $284 monthly subsidy. She let herself be automatically re-enrolled for 2015.

During 2014, however, the Newark, N.J., resident landed a new job with a higher salary. Now, she has to pay back $600 of her subsidy.

To avoid this happening again, Cherington called the federal exchange to update her income, which she hadn't done when she changed jobs. Her revised monthly premium: $156 a month.

A case manager who handles disability payments, Cherington is now considering dropping her coverage and paying the penalty instead.

"It's not really affordable," she said of her new premium. "I don't know if I'll be able to keep it."